Jump to content

humbledman

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About humbledman

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey sorry if this is too personal but can you please give examples about what happened? Not that I'm doubting you, I'm legitimately curious.
  2. Can you please give an example of how to do this? It sounds interesting.
  3. Wish you luck with CSIS, I have multiple friends who applied, one did their masters in game theory, another one had a masters in computer science and worked at IBM for 6 years, neither of them got a call for an interview.
  4. It’s not any type of homework question, I’m wondering what people think, just like I said. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.
  5. I was wondering what you guys think of the Thomas Chan case? What do you think the law should be in a matter such as this?
  6. This is what I'm talking about, no one is actually making an argument, it's name calling and non sequiturs
  7. I've taken 14 sociology courses, 12 at u of t and 2 at ryerson. I dropped out a while back and decided to go back to school because I was tired of working construction so I went to ryerson to finish my degree.
  8. A part of that was me being snarky with Rashabon, of course I don't think that only conservative people use rigorous statistics I was being a dick. Before I brought it up because let's be honest, any alternative explanation for a subject such as wage differences between races, or pay gaps in a sport get lumped into being conservative, as you can see from clean hands. People will consider conservatives as being stupid if they offer almost any refutal to the typical narrative. I mean I'm acknowledging that sexism definitely plays a role gender wage gap, that expectations of women to be mothers does to, but if I point out you can't apply it to every situation in terms of wage differences i'm an idiot. Maybe I am an idiot, hopefully I learn something and become a better thinker for it here.
  9. Tell me what is so wrong with what I said? Not it's stupid or name calling. The sociologists in the classroom literally make such arguments, I mean it's actually taken from my class. Do you think that there is no relationship between what people call excitement and their willingness to buy a fight card? Do you think my assertion that there is a relationship between people thinking there will be knockouts and their willingness to pay for fights is incorrect? Do you think that my assertion that laypeople tend to not want to pay for fights where they think they can possibly beat the fighter up is incorrect? Do you think by bringing up this example I am saying that any talk of the gender wage gap is flawed? Tell me here what is so bad, in an actual argument, do you think I am misrepresenting sociologists? Do you feel that my classroom experiences and my hearing people talk about are highly unrepresentative? Please tell me what is so stupid about it, i'm honestly asking because in the real world sociologists do say that it is the result of gender norms, even for things like fight examples.
  10. Coming form you that means a lot, it takes a stupid to know a stupid lol
  11. I never said that they don't do any critical analysis whatsoever, the problem with the sociological thought is it often creates a rationalization in the face of certain evidence. For example differences in fighter pay between male and female. A sociologist would say something like female fighters make 80 cents on the dollar to male fighters, they would point to this just being more evidence of the patriarchy. The sociologist would say that the pay gap between fighters is due to patriarchal norms. A more thorough analysis would have controls, look at men's weight divisions differences in compensation based on weight class, they would look at surveys of what people find exciting about fighting. In terms of a linear regression, outliers like Connor Mcgregor would throw off the analysis somewhat, but when these type of outliers are accounted for you would see that pay is positively associated with things like size and weight. You might examine finishing percentages, probability of knockouts in a fight and find that they are also positively associated with weight and size. You might survey fans and find things like they the say they don't want to watch fights where they think they as a layperson might be able to beat them (for example the 135lb category for men). Now people may say that they are more willing to buy cards that seem exciting, what does exciting mean? Well, one that the person they are watching can beat them up, and probably many other people in the world, think of heavyweight being called the baddest man on the planet. They may find that people are more willing to buy cards in they expect knockout or submissions instead of drawn out fights. Now we would think that there is a relationship between the expected number of cards bought and the compensation fighters will receive, especially if they are a main draw. In classes, they will say things like it's unfair they should be paid the same thing, they are doing the same thing after all. It's not that people are not willing to buy as much due to weight and size of fighters but rather that smaller sizes is seen as feminine and the marketplace favors masculine characteristics. I could flesh this out even more in terms of patriarchal norms but I won't to keep this short. Now how can such a statement by the sociologist be disproven? It is seen as true because they say it is, because their theories tell them that any discrepancy must be accounted for in such a manner. That the gap is fundamentally unfair, it is a material discrepancy and must be rectified. Do you see my problem with this type of reasoning? Do you see why it's an issue? Now with all that i've said does that mean that I think that sexist elements couldn't play a role in such differences? Absolutely not! Does this mean that the sociologist does not draw conclusions with no critical analysis like you claim? No of course not. But let's not do what the sociologist do, because I hear them in the classroom, this type of thinking is rampant, not just in this specific example but many places. Me saying a conservative view to Rashabon was more of me being snarky than anything. As for you, I think you just have a bias, you had a preconception of somebody that would make that statement and when it doesn't match you're unwilling to drop it and just admit you're wrong.
  12. You see, conservatives would probably have such a view, a view by the way that does not need to pretend racism doesn't exist. But it is the stupidest shit you've seen in a long time. You wonder why I was saying if you have conservative views (which in this case is just using data) you shouldn't mention it. Because there are people that look at focusing on all the factors as a stupid thing to do. I'm not saying that the whole gap is due to this, I was getting at the fact that racism was only a partial explanation for such a gap and that the other factors are relatively significant. I don't want people to take that the wrong way and think I'm trying to say racism doesn't matter or it's not important, it is. You know this is how many conservatives think, and when you call analysis stupid and people are laughing at how me saying watch out don't tell people a political affiliation as if it's some highly unlikely event that people will look down on you or associate you with "stupid shit" I find them a bit naïve. Again I will acknowledge it's unlikely to be rejected for affiliation, people do have biases and I wouldn't want to be going through the holistic process with only a couple of seats left and a bunch of candidates with the biases that a decent (small but significant) amount of the population have. Now you could say that the Adcom are not the general population, sure that's true but I just don't like the uncertainty.
  13. Let's say we are talking about something like wage differences. It would probably look at things such as when people immigrated to the country, their ages, cohort effects, discrimination, differences in values. So for example, sociologists would say something like, blacks make 70 cents on the dollar to whites and that this points to something fundamentally unjust in society. Whereas the conservative view would take into account all of the evidence and implement controls to analyze the claim using rigorous statistics. They would explain how much of the gap is explained by differences in ages, so if the median age of whites is 56 while the median age of blacks is 35, they would describe how people tend to make varying amounts of money at different ages. They might bring up 5-10 studies on wage progression throughout one's lifetime, that people's highest earning years tend to be in their 50's and how much this phenomena would effect our aggregated earnings when we use naïve empiricism. They could explore network effects, I could go on and on.
  14. I'm sorry for starting all this guys, I really didn't mean to. I was trying to suggest the guy/gal shouldn't talk about politics because of all the things I'd heard in my classrooms and study groups (I was also assuming it was the conservative party or else he wouldn't ask). I just had it in my mind that imagine if you were going to get in, and by some off chance you get the person who thinks that way and you didn't even know.
  15. Yes, I was writing on my phone at night, I wrote and when I should of put or. The remark that they are incompatible is valid.
×
×
  • Create New...